Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Other Stuff
Off Topic
I'm cheesed about this wedding photographer...
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="aroy" data-source="post: 352211" data-attributes="member: 16090"><p>It all boils down to what people are ready to pay. If the profession pays low, then it will be full of average or below average players.</p><p></p><p> It is same every where. During Y2K crisis, any one who could code a bit was taken at a top salary, once the crisis was over the market was full of software engineers who were practically worthless. They were willing to come at rock bottom pay, depressing the market. Gradually it dawned on to the recruiters that those who come for peanuts are monkeys, not worth recruiting. I think wedding photography is going through a similar phase. Soon the clients will realise that quality and reliability costs, and hope fully such "unprofessional" photographers will be sidelined.</p><p></p><p>That said, good equipment is nice to have, but not necessary. There is nothing wrong in shooting a wedding with say, D60, as long as you can wring the best out of it. I remember in film days the top ISO used was 400 and the photographers got excellent results. In fact mostly they used 100 or even 60, as 400 was too "grainy" for their liking. A Yashika TLR and a flash with external battery was all that majority of wedding photographers used in India. Even now I tend to use the D3300 at ISO 100 most of the time. In low light I have tried ISO 400 to 800, but only if I do not want to use the flash.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="aroy, post: 352211, member: 16090"] It all boils down to what people are ready to pay. If the profession pays low, then it will be full of average or below average players. It is same every where. During Y2K crisis, any one who could code a bit was taken at a top salary, once the crisis was over the market was full of software engineers who were practically worthless. They were willing to come at rock bottom pay, depressing the market. Gradually it dawned on to the recruiters that those who come for peanuts are monkeys, not worth recruiting. I think wedding photography is going through a similar phase. Soon the clients will realise that quality and reliability costs, and hope fully such "unprofessional" photographers will be sidelined. That said, good equipment is nice to have, but not necessary. There is nothing wrong in shooting a wedding with say, D60, as long as you can wring the best out of it. I remember in film days the top ISO used was 400 and the photographers got excellent results. In fact mostly they used 100 or even 60, as 400 was too "grainy" for their liking. A Yashika TLR and a flash with external battery was all that majority of wedding photographers used in India. Even now I tend to use the D3300 at ISO 100 most of the time. In low light I have tried ISO 400 to 800, but only if I do not want to use the flash. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Other Stuff
Off Topic
I'm cheesed about this wedding photographer...
Top